What about AA 587?

jujigatami · 12th October 2006, 01:48 PM

I'm a skeptic. Really I am. I don't believe ANY of the 9/11 CT's because they are bunk, wholly unbelieveable.

But then I come across something like this:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/260

Which is in no way a 9/11 CT, almost the exact opposite, it claims that the crash of AA 587 in Brooklyn, almost exactly 2 months after 9/11 was indeed terrorism, and is being hushed up by the government.

Out of ALL of the CT's I've seen here, this is the only one that makes any sense. I mean, could you imagine the widespread public panic and hit the airline industry would take, just after the government bailed them out with hundreds of billions.

I mean, the official story (I can't believe I just typed that) is that wake turbulence from a 747 1.5 miles ahead caused the plane to come apart. That to me sounds almost as ridiculous as bombs in the WTC.

I'm seriously just looking for some knowelegable info on this flight.

Thanks in advance.

rwguinn · 12th October 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by jujigatami

I'm a skeptic. Really I am. I don't believe ANY of the 9/11 CT's because they are bunk, wholly unbelieveable.

But then I come across something like this:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/260

Which is in no way a 9/11 CT, almost the exact opposite, it claims that the crash of AA 587 in Brooklyn, almost exactly 2 months after 9/11 was indeed terrorism, and is being hushed up by the government.

Out of ALL of the CT's I've seen here, this is the only one that makes any sense. I mean, could you imagine the widespread public panic and hit the airline industry would take, just after the government bailed them out with hundreds of billions.

I mean, the official story (I can't believe I just typed that) is that wake turbulence from a 747 1.5 miles ahead caused the plane to come apart. That to me sounds almost as ridiculous as bombs in the WTC.

I'm seriously just looking for some knowelegable info on this flight.

Thanks in advance.

You'd besurprised at how longthat vortex off the wings persists.. and it wasn't just the turbulence--there is a problem with the airplane--and how do you tell the world that Airbus may have miscalculated the loads on the rudder?
The eventual "Probable cause" was Pilot Error thru "unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs"
Personal opinion--if activating the pedal stop-to-stop several times puts undue loads on the airframe, then you need to eithe strengthen the airframe, or reduce the available throw...
see the NTSB Report

jujigatami · 12th October 2006, 02:29 PM

I understand and believe how long the wake of a large jet can be and is. I have no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is that if that is seriously the case, there should have been dozens of crashes of A300's. And has the plane been retrofitted to correct this quite glaring design problem? Is it really just coincidence that the first time this happened is right after 9/11 in NYC?

Jeez, I sound like a nutbar.

Forget I said anything.

rwguinn · 12th October 2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by jujigatami

I understand and believe how long the wake of a large jet can be and is. I have no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is that if that is seriously the case, there should have been dozens of crashes of A300's. And has the plane been retrofitted to correct this quite glaring design problem? Is it really just coincidence that the first time this happened is right after 9/11 in NYC?

Jeez, I sound like a nutbar.

Forget I said anything.

Yes, there have bee retrofits, and a search of "Incidents" on the NTSB site shows that there have been other problems (IIRC, one A300 lost part of a rudder between London and the US at another time).

Sword_Of_Truth · 12th October 2006, 02:56 PM

I wouldn't worry about it, Jujigatami. You asked an honest question and displayed the willingness to modify your position according to the evidence presented.

That kind of behavior would get you banned in a heartbeat from the LC boards.

That being said, one of the scariest moments of my life was nearly getting sucked into the back side of a semi trailer truck as it passed me at 100 kmh while I was riding my mountain bike along the shoulder of a freeway. I could feel the thing pull me in just as it flew by. Stack on 190 tons and 500 miles per hour and I can easily see that 747 tossing around smaller planes like a tornado as it goes by.

Polaris · 12th October 2006, 05:24 PM

What would be the motive for covering up terrorism on another airliner after 9/11?

Similar themes surround TWA 800, that Clinton covered up a missile shoot-down of the plane by terrorists. I suppose to keep anti-Arab sentiments down in time for his peace summits.

apathoid · 12th October 2006, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Yes, there have bee retrofits, and a search of "Incidents" on the NTSB site shows that there have been other problems (IIRC, one A300 lost part of a rudder between London and the US at another time).

Actually, there haven't been any modifications to the rudder system. A CTer asked me this in another forum and the only Airworthiness Directive I could find issued after AA587 was merely an inspection order.

Originally Posted by FAA Airworthiness Directive

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A300; A300-600; and A310 series airplanes. This action requires certain inspections of the airplane (including the vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, pylons, wing, and fuselage areas) following an in-flight incident resulting in extreme lateral loading. This action is necessary to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the airplane following any future event. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

Detailed Inspections
(d) Do the following detailed inspections at the time specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(1) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) Do the inspections as specified in and per Chapter 05-51-17 (Inspections After Flight in Excessive Turbulence or In Excess of VMO/MMO) of Airbus A300, A300-600 or A310 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), as applicable. Extend the areas for these inspections as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Extend the wing inspection area to include rib 22 through rib 29.
(ii) Extend the fuselage inspection area from the inside to include frame 84 through 87 above stringer 23, and all areas of frame 91.
(2) Do detailed inspections to find damage of the areas specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i),(d)(2)(ii), and (d)(2)(iii) of this AD, according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
(i) Inspect the fuselage external surface under the vertical stabilizer to fuselage fairing, including side load fittings and lower surface of rib 1 of the vertical stabilizer.
(ii) Inspect the rudder hinge arms and support fittings 1 through 7, and the actuator support fittings of the vertical stabilizer.
(iii) Inspect the rudder hinge fittings 1 through 7, and the actuator support fittings of the vertical stabilizer.

If any damage is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair according to the method specified in the Airbus structural repair manual.....

AD Link

The ADs issued after TWA800...well, thats another story and I've spent literally weeks in fuel tanks because of them.

rwguinn · 13th October 2006, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by apathoid

Actually, there haven't been any modifications to the rudder system. A CTer asked me this in another forum and the only Airworthiness Directive I could find issued after AA587 was merely an inspection order.

AD Link

The ADs issued after TWA800...well, thats another story and I've spent literally weeks in fuel tanks because of them.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
I still try to avoid A300's...

apathoid · 13th October 2006, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
I still try to avoid A300's...

They don't call 'em Scarebusses for nothing

jujigatami · 13th October 2006, 09:57 AM

Thanks Apathoid.

I never had a problem believing the static electricity ignition causing the TWA 800 explosion.

Scary, but fully understandable.

What always got me about 587 was that I've been through lots of VERY strong turbulence in many different planes (I fly about 20,000 miles a year) But Wake turbulence causing the tail to literally fall off? Even if the pilot hard rudders it, falling off?

Why hasn't it happened a lot more than it has?

I've never been afraid of flying, but there is no way I'm getting on an A380, if it ever does get built.

apathoid · 13th October 2006, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by jujigatami

Thanks Apathoid.

I never had a problem believing the static electricity ignition causing the TWA 800 explosion.

Scary, but fully understandable.

What always got me about 587 was that I've been through lots of VERY strong turbulence in many different planes (I fly about 20,000 miles a year) But Wake turbulence causing the tail to literally fall off? Even if the pilot hard rudders it, falling off?

Why hasn't it happened a lot more than it has?

I've never been afraid of flying, but there is no way I'm getting on an A380, if it ever does get built.

The 380 is built and flying, but orders are slim - so you may never get to fly on it.

Like all accidents, AA 587 had many contributing factors. Without getting too geeky, basically most airliners limit the rudder input with higher speed. This is called "rudder ratio". There are similar systems with the roll and pitch systems to prevent over-controlling/overstress(aileron feel and centering mechanism, elevator feel computer). On A-300s, there is rudder ratio, but the NTSB concluded that at the speed 587 was flying(250 kts ~ 300 mph) full rudder deflection was available. This would not be the case on Boeings. The fact that the First Offficer deflected the rudder fully shouldnt cause the fin to snap off, in any case. But he defected it against a lateral tornado which really put the attatch fittings/bolts in an overstressed condition. The F/O repeated full defection, both directions, numerous times. At some point, the lateral forces were too great and the failure point was reached. The forces were so great, the engines shear bolts failed and the engines(at least one, I think both) broke free from the pylons.

Why hasnt it happened before? Good question. I didnt look at the findings in detail, but perhaps there was corrosion/cracks in the area where the vertical stab attaches to the fuselage which lead to the NTSB issuing the AD I linked. It was probably a bad idea to keep correcting laterally, the pilots couldve climbed/descended to get out of the wake, instead of stomping on the rudder. The Airbus probably shouldve limited rudder travel at that speed, but didn't. Etc, etc...

jujigatami · 13th October 2006, 12:50 PM

I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition.

Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for.

I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking.

How is the A320?

Sorry to be a pest.

Bell · 13th October 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by jujigatami

I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition.

Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for.

I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking.

How is the A320?

Sorry to be a pest.

So so...

apathoid · 13th October 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

So so...

Apparently, that "glitch" has been fixed.

Originally Posted by jujigatami

I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition.
Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for.

I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking.

How is the A320?

Sorry to be a pest.

Good thing you didnt want the geeked version as geekitude isnt really my strong point(does that mean I'm not a geek?).
Anyhow, I've never flown on or worked on an Airbus, so your guess is as good as mine about the 320. I can tell you that most mechanics/sparkchasers I know who've worked on them - don't have good things to say. My motto is "Going Boeing" or "If its not Boeing, I'm not going"
That approach hasnt let me down yet(knocks on computer desk).

jujigatami · 13th October 2006, 01:32 PM

Oy Vey.

Jet Blue is my favorite airline! All Airbus & Embraer.

Though I do fly on Continental more than any other.

But this all got me thinking, wouldn't it be a great CT... The heads of the airlines (all Joos I'm sure) did 9/11 in an effort to get the government to give them Billions in bailouts. Think about it, They have all the access you'd ever need, could buy off anyone with all of their money, could fake any flight documents/equipment.

Its the perfect plan... throw in a few relationships with the Bush Admin, and presto instant CT.

12th October 2006, 01:48 PM	#1
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136	What about AA 587? I'm a skeptic. Really I am. I don't believe ANY of the 9/11 CT's because they are bunk, wholly unbelieveable. But then I come across something like this: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/260 Which is in no way a 9/11 CT, almost the exact opposite, it claims that the crash of AA 587 in Brooklyn, almost exactly 2 months after 9/11 was indeed terrorism, and is being hushed up by the government. Out of ALL of the CT's I've seen here, this is the only one that makes any sense. I mean, could you imagine the widespread public panic and hit the airline industry would take, just after the government bailed them out with hundreds of billions. I mean, the official story (I can't believe I just typed that) is that wake turbulence from a 747 1.5 miles ahead caused the plane to come apart. That to me sounds almost as ridiculous as bombs in the WTC. I'm seriously just looking for some knowelegable info on this flight. Thanks in advance.
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136

12th October 2006, 02:18 PM	#2
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,456	Originally Posted by jujigatami I'm a skeptic. Really I am. I don't believe ANY of the 9/11 CT's because they are bunk, wholly unbelieveable. But then I come across something like this: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/260 Which is in no way a 9/11 CT, almost the exact opposite, it claims that the crash of AA 587 in Brooklyn, almost exactly 2 months after 9/11 was indeed terrorism, and is being hushed up by the government. Out of ALL of the CT's I've seen here, this is the only one that makes any sense. I mean, could you imagine the widespread public panic and hit the airline industry would take, just after the government bailed them out with hundreds of billions. I mean, the official story (I can't believe I just typed that) is that wake turbulence from a 747 1.5 miles ahead caused the plane to come apart. That to me sounds almost as ridiculous as bombs in the WTC. I'm seriously just looking for some knowelegable info on this flight. Thanks in advance. You'd besurprised at how longthat vortex off the wings persists.. and it wasn't just the turbulence--there is a problem with the airplane--and how do you tell the world that Airbus may have miscalculated the loads on the rudder? The eventual "Probable cause" was Pilot Error thru "unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs" Personal opinion--if activating the pedal stop-to-stop several times puts undue loads on the airframe, then you need to eithe strengthen the airframe, or reduce the available throw... see the NTSB Report
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th October 2006, 02:29 PM	#3
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136	I understand and believe how long the wake of a large jet can be and is. I have no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is that if that is seriously the case, there should have been dozens of crashes of A300's. And has the plane been retrofitted to correct this quite glaring design problem? Is it really just coincidence that the first time this happened is right after 9/11 in NYC? Jeez, I sound like a nutbar. Forget I said anything.
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136

12th October 2006, 02:36 PM	#4
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,456	Originally Posted by jujigatami I understand and believe how long the wake of a large jet can be and is. I have no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is that if that is seriously the case, there should have been dozens of crashes of A300's. And has the plane been retrofitted to correct this quite glaring design problem? Is it really just coincidence that the first time this happened is right after 9/11 in NYC? Jeez, I sound like a nutbar. Forget I said anything. Yes, there have bee retrofits, and a search of "Incidents" on the NTSB site shows that there have been other problems (IIRC, one A300 lost part of a rudder between London and the US at another time).
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th October 2006, 05:24 PM	#6
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	What would be the motive for covering up terrorism on another airliner after 9/11? Similar themes surround TWA 800, that Clinton covered up a missile shoot-down of the plane by terrorists. I suppose to keep anti-Arab sentiments down in time for his peace summits.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

12th October 2006, 02:56 PM	#5
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	I wouldn't worry about it, Jujigatami. You asked an honest question and displayed the willingness to modify your position according to the evidence presented. That kind of behavior would get you banned in a heartbeat from the LC boards. That being said, one of the scariest moments of my life was nearly getting sucked into the back side of a semi trailer truck as it passed me at 100 kmh while I was riding my mountain bike along the shoulder of a freeway. I could feel the thing pull me in just as it flew by. Stack on 190 tons and 500 miles per hour and I can easily see that 747 tossing around smaller planes like a tornado as it goes by.

12th October 2006, 10:39 PM	#7
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Originally Posted by rwguinn Yes, there have bee retrofits, and a search of "Incidents" on the NTSB site shows that there have been other problems (IIRC, one A300 lost part of a rudder between London and the US at another time). Actually, there haven't been any modifications to the rudder system. A CTer asked me this in another forum and the only Airworthiness Directive I could find issued after AA587 was merely an inspection order. Originally Posted by FAA Airworthiness Directive SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A300; A300-600; and A310 series airplanes. This action requires certain inspections of the airplane (including the vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, pylons, wing, and fuselage areas) following an in-flight incident resulting in extreme lateral loading. This action is necessary to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the airplane following any future event. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. Detailed Inspections (d) Do the following detailed inspections at the time specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(1) of this AD, as applicable. (1) Do the inspections as specified in and per Chapter 05-51-17 (Inspections After Flight in Excessive Turbulence or In Excess of VMO/MMO) of Airbus A300, A300-600 or A310 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), as applicable. Extend the areas for these inspections as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this AD. (i) Extend the wing inspection area to include rib 22 through rib 29. (ii) Extend the fuselage inspection area from the inside to include frame 84 through 87 above stringer 23, and all areas of frame 91. (2) Do detailed inspections to find damage of the areas specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i),(d)(2)(ii), and (d)(2)(iii) of this AD, according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. (i) Inspect the fuselage external surface under the vertical stabilizer to fuselage fairing, including side load fittings and lower surface of rib 1 of the vertical stabilizer. (ii) Inspect the rudder hinge arms and support fittings 1 through 7, and the actuator support fittings of the vertical stabilizer. (iii) Inspect the rudder hinge fittings 1 through 7, and the actuator support fittings of the vertical stabilizer. If any damage is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair according to the method specified in the Airbus structural repair manual..... AD Link The ADs issued after TWA800...well, thats another story and I've spent literally weeks in fuel tanks because of them.

13th October 2006, 06:26 AM	#8
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,456	Originally Posted by apathoid Actually, there haven't been any modifications to the rudder system. A CTer asked me this in another forum and the only Airworthiness Directive I could find issued after AA587 was merely an inspection order. AD Link The ADs issued after TWA800...well, thats another story and I've spent literally weeks in fuel tanks because of them. I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I still try to avoid A300's...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

13th October 2006, 06:47 AM	#9
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Originally Posted by rwguinn I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I still try to avoid A300's... They don't call 'em Scarebusses for nothing

13th October 2006, 09:57 AM	#10
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136	Thanks Apathoid. I never had a problem believing the static electricity ignition causing the TWA 800 explosion. Scary, but fully understandable. What always got me about 587 was that I've been through lots of VERY strong turbulence in many different planes (I fly about 20,000 miles a year) But Wake turbulence causing the tail to literally fall off? Even if the pilot hard rudders it, falling off? Why hasn't it happened a lot more than it has? I've never been afraid of flying, but there is no way I'm getting on an A380, if it ever does get built.
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136

13th October 2006, 11:46 AM	#11
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Originally Posted by jujigatami Thanks Apathoid. I never had a problem believing the static electricity ignition causing the TWA 800 explosion. Scary, but fully understandable. What always got me about 587 was that I've been through lots of VERY strong turbulence in many different planes (I fly about 20,000 miles a year) But Wake turbulence causing the tail to literally fall off? Even if the pilot hard rudders it, falling off? Why hasn't it happened a lot more than it has? I've never been afraid of flying, but there is no way I'm getting on an A380, if it ever does get built. The 380 is built and flying, but orders are slim - so you may never get to fly on it. Like all accidents, AA 587 had many contributing factors. Without getting too geeky, basically most airliners limit the rudder input with higher speed. This is called "rudder ratio". There are similar systems with the roll and pitch systems to prevent over-controlling/overstress(aileron feel and centering mechanism, elevator feel computer). On A-300s, there is rudder ratio, but the NTSB concluded that at the speed 587 was flying(250 kts ~ 300 mph) full rudder deflection was available. This would not be the case on Boeings. The fact that the First Offficer deflected the rudder fully shouldnt cause the fin to snap off, in any case. But he defected it against a lateral tornado which really put the attatch fittings/bolts in an overstressed condition. The F/O repeated full defection, both directions, numerous times. At some point, the lateral forces were too great and the failure point was reached. The forces were so great, the engines shear bolts failed and the engines(at least one, I think both) broke free from the pylons. Why hasnt it happened before? Good question. I didnt look at the findings in detail, but perhaps there was corrosion/cracks in the area where the vertical stab attaches to the fuselage which lead to the NTSB issuing the AD I linked. It was probably a bad idea to keep correcting laterally, the pilots couldve climbed/descended to get out of the wake, instead of stomping on the rudder. The Airbus probably shouldve limited rudder travel at that speed, but didn't. Etc, etc...

13th October 2006, 12:50 PM	#12
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136	I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition. Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for. I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking. How is the A320? Sorry to be a pest.
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136

13th October 2006, 01:00 PM	#13
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,486	Originally Posted by jujigatami I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition. Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for. I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking. How is the A320? Sorry to be a pest. So so...
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

13th October 2006, 01:20 PM	#14
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Originally Posted by Bell So so... Apparently, that "glitch" has been fixed. Originally Posted by jujigatami I thought there were plenty of orders, but the production has been pushed back over 2 years and there is debate whether the actual orders will ever come to fruition. Thanks for the semi geeky explanation. Thats actually what I was looking for. I have heard way too many non-geeky explanations and they are just way too lacking. How is the A320? Sorry to be a pest. Good thing you didnt want the geeked version as geekitude isnt really my strong point(does that mean I'm not a geek?). Anyhow, I've never flown on or worked on an Airbus, so your guess is as good as mine about the 320. I can tell you that most mechanics/sparkchasers I know who've worked on them - don't have good things to say. My motto is "Going Boeing" or "If its not Boeing, I'm not going" That approach hasnt let me down yet(knocks on computer desk).

13th October 2006, 01:32 PM	#15
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136	Oy Vey. Jet Blue is my favorite airline! All Airbus & Embraer. Though I do fly on Continental more than any other. But this all got me thinking, wouldn't it be a great CT... The heads of the airlines (all Joos I'm sure) did 9/11 in an effort to get the government to give them Billions in bailouts. Think about it, They have all the access you'd ever need, could buy off anyone with all of their money, could fake any flight documents/equipment. Its the perfect plan... throw in a few relationships with the Bush Admin, and presto instant CT.
jujigatami Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 136